and make sure we are looking at individuals who have the background and the ability to look at the issues and to make a judgment based on the block. -- law. i do not being a judicial activist is inappropriate. i do not think it is appropriate for them to try to create law but to look at the law and implement it as it has been written by congress. i think we have great opportunities. i have looked at several of the supreme court justice nominations that have come before me. some of them i have agreed with politically. some of which i have not agreed with politically. i based on their qualifications. . .

>> we have to get spending under control. if we keep going in our current trap, and 10-years of the national debt will be over $20 trillion. we cannot leave them for our children and grandchildren to pay off. it is like if you give someone a salary of $25,000 and bay co $25,000 to credit card companies, how will they ever dig their way out of that? excuse me. we cannot leave that. if you are a parent, would you go into your child's room and take money that they earned babysitting or mowing the lawn and spend it for something that you thought you wanted? of course you would not. the politicians in washington are willing to do that. that is one of the reasons i am running. >> thank you. >> i am proud of the fact that for the six years of bill clinton's presidency i worked in the white house budget office.

when president clinton into that office, we had a two and $80 billion deficit. it was projected to go higher. i was proud to be part of the team that balance that budget. it left a surplus at the end of his administration. since that time, washington has wrecked our budget. this year we will turn in at least a $1.40 trillion deficit. in the last 10 years, we have added $7 trillion of debt on top of arkansas families and the rest of the country. that is not right. there are things we can do and have done to try to trim spending. also, we need to get our economy moving again. that will help us to reduce the deficit in the longer term. i'd look forward to working on these issues. i look forward to balancing the federal budget again.

>> thank you. >> in my first days in congress, i started a group called the blue dog democrat who supported the constitutional amendment. my opponent takes credit for balancing the budget under president clinton. that is a tough vote and make it a reality. there are important things we can do to help is still without a deficit. putting our spending is a critical part of it. long-term spending is also important. we have got to deal with those. that is one of the reasons why healthcare has been so important. it lowers the deficit by $132 billion. i have helped to pass pay-go rules. we should be balancing our budget and the nation.

i put instrument in place to help our nation do that. >> that concludes round one. we will now move into round two. >> you have criticized the signature with her votes for the tarp stimulus, right? we cannot seem to get an exact answer it how you had been in their how would you vote? >> tarp and the stimulus are two different things. i would have voted no on that tarp bill. it has very few strings attached and accountability. i would not have voted to dicker regulate wall street in the first place. -- to deregulate wall street in the first place.

this problem did not occur overnight. as president obama said just yesterday, the responsibility for this lies with wall street and washington. i also cannot simultaneously regulate an industry and then go out and solicit campaign contributions. i asked senator lincoln to give back the contribution goldman sachs made to her campaign. they are under investigation for fraud. i think it is unseemly to be raising money from the very folks you are supposed to regulate, particularly when they wrecked our economy. >> thank you. we have indicated that we would no longer take any of those funds are deal with goldman sachs. the 45 countries that i received from the tax unfortunately has not affected

what i have done. i have created an passed the toughest reform bill on wall street that anyone had seen. we bring the $600 trillion out to the dark and into the light of the dave . -- of day. we lowered systemic risk. we bring 100 and transparency to the market with real-time reporting to both the public and the regulators to do we protect municipalities. when regulate foreign exchange -- we regulate foreign exchange. i get criticized because i deny do this 10 years. i have done the best since i could since i have gotten it. >> thank you.

washington always seems to solve the problem that just happened. the financial meltdown began with misguided efforts in washington, d.c. for home ownership for every american takeovers to banks to make unsound loans -- every american. a day, worst -- they coereced bacnk to make loans. they were ignored by washington because they wanted to continue this practice. barney frank has said that he wanted to roll the dice a little bit more. when it all came down, the taxpayers had to pick up the bill. of course wall street is

responsible. any company that leverage is up 40 to 1 deserves to go broke. the taxpayer should not have had to bail them out. >> our next question is from jessica dean. >> recent polls show that the majority of arkansas voters think that the health care bill was bad for the country. you voted for it. do you still believe that vote was good for arkansas? >> asaph this lead. -- absolutely. there is no doubt there has been a lot of misinformation. we started this debate with seven different bills. people that differenbits and pif those different bills. i started working on health care in 2004, working with senator snowe on a bill that focused on the largest percentage of uninsured, working to see how we provide a marketplace similar

to what we have for small businesses to access quality health care at a low-cost. when the health-care debate happened, i heard from our arkansas. they wanted to make sure children were not born to be denied health insurance. we did that in this bill. we made sure that the 230 million americans better uninsured will be able to keep their interns in the private -- that are insured will be able to keep their insurance in the private marketplace. >> thank you. mr. morrison? >> i think it is a job killer. health care needs reform. there is no doubt about that. i do not believe the federal government has the power to

force you to buy anything, including health insurance. cleveland clinic gives us a -- a just recently published study from the cleveland clinic gives us little clue -- smoking, alcohol and drug abuse, lack of exercise accounts for 50% to 60% of the health care costs. health care costs are not tied because premiums are high. health-care costs are high because of habits of the american people. the federal government is not one to solve that. my concern is that seven or 10 years down the road, you will not be able to buy private insurance. you are going to have the same people running your health insurance that thought home ownership for every american was a good idea. >> i think there were many good things in the bill, including an elimination of pre-existing conditions to exclude people

from health insurance. you cannot be done this issue unless you are clear in what direction you are going. senator lincoln was initially for the public option. then she said she was against the public option. then she went to the floor of the senate and threatened to filibuster the public option. she voted against the reconciliation bill which would have improved to the underlying senate bill but is now the law. president obama supported that. senator lincoln has run television ads saying she oppose the public option that president obama supported. shares also run radio ads on -- she has also run radio ads on african american radio saying she supported president obama. you have to be clear and decisive . that did not happen in this issue. >> thank you. our next question is from christopher smith.

>> mr. marston, since president obama was in office for two more years, how would you go about establishing a good working relationship with him? what issues would you support and issues you do not support with the president? >> if i'm elected, i am going to be working for the people of arkansas and the people of the united states of america not president obama. the issues that i would like to work on are the issues that are before us now that i mentioned earlier. i would like to pass the fair tax. i think it will work. i would like health-care reform that would work. without forcing them to buy health care under the threat of a fine or going to jail. another thing i think that is important that is not being addressed is the board is

security between the united states and mexico and our border security all around the country. it is a little disconcerting to mention. there were 17,000 murders in northern mexico and the last three years. that is scary. 650 kidnappings in arizona. something has to be some. >> i think our most immediate needs are to work on creating jobs in the united states and in arkansas. i would wear to eliminate the tax provision that action against american companies an incentive to move jobs overseas. replace those with tax credits so that we can create jobs here at home and said the more bailout for wall street.

but put those funds into loans for arkansas small businesses. i would build on a scholarship lottery to improve the training of our workforce long term. i believe we could get passed federal legislation that would build on the arkansas scholarship lottery sell arkansas students with a 2.5 grade point average could go to any public college or university in arkansas tuition free. that has been an ideal and go for democrats for years, to provide that educational opportunity so we can live up to our potential. >> i am glad to see that he is back on his a positive campaign. we would like to agree with him. it is very important to have this tax credits. i join the governor and fort smith. we noted the mitsubishi plants coming in. making sure that we are working to provide those kind of tax incentives to keep jobs in america and not send them

overseas. i already work with president obama. i already know him. i work well with them. healthcare was a big issue. i feel proud about what we did. bill thinks the reconciliation was very essential. i did not think it was essential. i think we did a good job with the health care bill. i voted for it on christmas eve. i did join the president in the signing ceremony. i believe we have made a good effort. we are making sure that people could not be denied because of an illness or be dropped because of an illness and not to mention covering our children. >> our final question from the panel tonight is from david catanese. >> you and the senator have

spared recently about the issue both social security. like medicare, it is an entitlement that is going insolvent. what is the most feasible option that basis social security? raise taxes? raise the retirement age? >> about social security, i was proud to be the deputy commissioner under president clinton. i thought president bush's attempts to privatize -- in the past, when we have needed to improve solvency of social security, which always had a balanced package of revenue increases and benefit reductions. in the past, we have worked with raising the retirement age. that is the current law. my birth year covert to be the first at the age of 67. if you look to previous history on social security reform, you

will see that we can do this. over a 75 year time frame, so security is only out of balance by about 1.8% of payroll. that is something that we have successfully addressed in the past. with a balanced package of revenue increases, we can balance social security for the long run. >> thank you. >> i certainly believe that keeping our promise to working americans will be there in their golden years is absolutely a promise we must keep a bit and do not think there only three ways to solve the problem. i have opposed attempts to privatize social security. bill has mentioned that he does believe there is an opportunity to be able to invest social security money in what street. we know what would happen if we would have done that.

i do not support a reduction of social security guaranteed benefits. i introduced a bill to try to implement this. i think it is inexcusable. a bill will preclude members of congress from getting a pay raise this year. social security benefits are not. i was a strong supporter in the effort to trim the bush tax cuts and direct it to insuring solvency of the social security trust fund. the best thing we can do is get our economy back on track in getting people back to work. >> social security is very important. we must do everything possible to make sure it is there. you folks have paid in cash. it has gone to the government. he should be able to trust them

to do what they say they will do. when social security began in 1937, we were a dunk nation. there were 16 working folks for every been necessary. there was never an accumulation phase. the money should have been accumulated over the years. currently, there are three people working for every recipient of every social security. there will soon be two people. in 1981, the congress raided the trust fund, to cut the cash and replace it with an iou. this year, we are having to cash in those ious. we are probably barring some of the money from china. the government has to keep their promise. i would do that by cutting spending. >> we will close with e-mail questions.

we go to john -- i am sorry commentary for our next. senator lincoln will be first to respond. >> do you think though "biting sound-byte" ads, that you run it to a stronger candidate? >> i am disappointed by the negative tone of this election, too. the problem is that i'm being outspent 3 to 1. there are outside groups coming in and spending large numbers of money in arkansas. those people will not tell you who they are predicted. tagline at the bottom. they will not tell you who they are in terms of telling you who we should be in arkansas and what you should think about me. roughly 1/6 of the ads are mine. all i'm trying to do is to make

sure i can get my message out and insure the voters are able to see the path of the opponents. i think that is only fair i had a 15 year record of votes. i am proud of that record. >> i have enjoyed the ads. [laughter] i used to think that talk was cheap until i found out what channel 7 charges for television. [laughter] it is worth every penny. if i had the money, i would do it. i enjoyed one that showed children throwing money in the air. i am trying to show folks that you can do things without money. money is not the solution to

all our problems. personal responsibility and hard work will take you a long way that is about all i have to go on with my campaign. i am opposed to a lot of the ads. i think we should just stay to the issues and run on your record. i think that would work better. thank you. >> i too would really love to see an improved tone. as senator lincoln pointed out, there is an ad out there that folks will not even reveal who they are. they basically charged that i was for the privatization of social security which is a lie. they will not tell you who they are. they are still out there. i suspect they will run some more ads. that was such a distortion that jim roosevelt came out and called it an outright lie. unfortunately, senator lincoln has run ads that commentators

and arkansas have called this honest, smearts. if you hours to launch another ad -- it provides a pretty girl to take down of a recent plant -- a recent ferro takedown of a blanche lincoln smear, so the lies continue. i've taken down the website that is called bailout blanche. i would ask you as we go forward if you stop referring to me ask dollar bill. [laughter] if you would seize the mailers. let's present a positive that we want for our futures and kids. >> that concludes the question portion of tonight's debate. we will now move in to closing statements. each candidate will have to

statements predicted minute. -- two statements. >> thank you for everyone being here. two nights ago i was at a pizza joint in arkansas where i met three generations of an arkansas family. the grandparents are on social security. the mother is bravely raising two daughters alone because her husband and their father died in service to our country. the 16 year-old daughter told me proudly that she had a 3.4 grade point average and that she was going to college. her 11 year-old sister spoke proudly of her dad. she said she was going to college, too, because she was going to earn a scholarship. they are not asking for special treatment. they certainly earned it. they have not given up. neither will i.. this family deserves a senator

who is on their side. together we can stand up to special interests and we can change washington's ways. in arkansas, we passed a scholarship program that provides scholarships for the two young woman. some say it cannot be done. we got it done together. as your senator, i will be proud to work with better jobs in arkansas to fight social security privatization and cuts in medicare and to balance the federal budget again. if you are tired of politicians to take special interest money and then vote their way, if you think it is ridiculous for washington to stand by white wall street runs over our economy and now want to take credit for addressing a problem that has been there for tenure,

-- for 10 years, as i would say let's change washington together. to that family in dumas and across arkansas, when you give us a level playing field, we can win. >> thank you. senator lincoln is next. >> i certainly will meet that challenge of being positive and bill will make sure that the special interest will bring down the negative attitude as well. i think it is so clear. primary voters have a clear choice beginning may 3. you know where i stand. i have proven that i will take the tough votes. i will make the tough choices when it is right for arkansas. my vote for the budget in 1993 meant that i had to face a difficult reelection the next year. it was the right thing to do. that budget agreement led to four straight years of budget surpluses and a booming economy. fisher, my vote for reform means that i will face a re- election that is difficult. i know it is the right thing to do for arkansas.

it will help stabilize our economy and offer access to more than 500,000 uninsured arkansans. as we enter the final days i want to ask for your boat. -- for your vote. you may hear a lot of guessing or misrepresentations about my state. i am proud to be an arkansas democrat. i will always say predictable and dedicated to the three things most important. my faith, my family, and my loyalty to the people of arkansas. i'm not going to expect that we agree on everything i know you will stand with me to help our proud and beautiful state to remain strong. i can assure you that the folks

in washington do not care or know much about what happened in arkansas. but, folks, i do. this is what i fight for. we want to thank all the sponsors tonight. we think the voters. -- we thank the voters. i wish my opponent well. and what thank the people of arkansas to give me the opportunity to represent you. >> the health care legislation is not one to create jobs. there are a lot of things that we can do. i'm a strong believer in the fairfax. -- in the fair tax. as far as special interests, i have no money from special interest. my interest are first and foremost our children. a lot of this have completed our carriers. -- a lot of us have completed our careers.

we should not be debt to our children. we to the they legacy. we are leaving debt. i do not think either one of these are going to do anything about it. i am willing to stand up to them and cut the size of the federal budget and cut spending in washington, cut personnel. i would cut everything but national defence and border security and use it to rebuild social security, medicare and medicaid, and cut down the national debt. i am giving the people of arkansas, regardless of your political affiliation, a chance on may 18 to send a message to washington that it is time for change. we have term limits for the president. we have term limits for our state legislature it is almost impossible, but i'm willing to do it. i will work hard. it is almost impossible for an individual like me to compete with this.

leading people in office until a eating -- but leaving people in novice until they died lot of cases they die in office before you can get the amount -- [laughter] that is no indication here for sure. [applause] we have to make a change. that is why i am running for office. >> ladies and gentlemen, or three candidates on the democratic side. [applause] >> we hope for the audience and for those of you watching around the state that tonight has been informative. we hope that it has been helpful. for those in arkansas, the surgeon hope they will vote in a primary on may 18.

that is going to do it for our debate tonight. thank you for watching. thank you for being here. good night. [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2010]

>> up next, there's a debate among the republican candidates. indiana will have a new senator next year. the senate seat has been rated as one of the most competitive races in of the country. the debate was held on tuesday in indianapolis and hosted by the indiana debate commission. it lasts about an hour. primary debate, sponsored by the indiana debate commission. commission. >> good evening. >> this debate features the five gentlemen seeking the republican nomination for the united state s senator. for the next hour, boaters will

ask the questions -- voters will ask the questions. friday night, we will hear the candidates answers. let me marlins stutzman was a farmer. he served three terms in the senate. richard behney amended plumbing company. he is a community volunteer. john hostettler was elected to represent the eighth district in 1984. winchester is a financial adviser. he is a board member of the chamber of commerce. - coats is an attorney. he is an ambassador to germany and served in the senate from 1989 through 1999. the campaign has drawn lots for their position on the stage.

i will announce the length of time each candidate has to answer a question. most will be one minute answers. the final answer is 90 seconds. i may announce that the answer will have to very to get this to the final question. as moderator, i may have to cut off when it these five gentlemen if they exceed the time to answer a question. i hope that does that happen tonight. that question will be reviewed by the debate commission. they note to use only small notes. let's meet our first future of voter. geoffrey miller is a boat trip from indiana. thank you for coming. >> good evening. what is your idea of a representative government? would you go to the will of the people are vote your own mind regardless? >> -- you will have 60 seconds to answer.

>> thank you for posting. i i think this is one of the questions that a but the people are asking themselves, how do our representatives represent us as people? i believe as a representative we are elected . the route the campaign we make our case to the people and ask them for their support. for myself, i have my personal convictions that i would always few as very important toç me ad break my personal convictions and be the constitutional parameter for our federal government. it is important that we listen to the people and those who have elected us and have that dialogue. when you are communicating in listening, you can better represent those who you represent at that time. it is important for us to make

sure that we are listening. >> thank you. >> thank you for being here. a great question. this is where i have come from this last year. this is what i've heard from thousands of users across our state that have this concern with politicians and politics, that we have strayed away from citizen representation. that is the outcry i have heard this past year. we want to get back to a people that we are that they had in mind, with citizen representation. that is what the qualifications are very clear. so that your neighbor would go and represent you. it to be an honor and not a career. i believe in citizen representation. i will lead with my convictions and concerns and by the constitution. >> thank you.

>> thank you for the commission for allowing us this opportunity. excellent question in that one of the five of us before you tonight will take an oath ultimately to uphold the constitution. that is essentially our job description. . . times prior and the people, when i took that oath, of the 8th district of indiana at that time and indiana in the future will know that it's my obligation to and talking about how i will fill them. >> thank you. thank you for the questions. w3.

. past few years is that government is not listening to the people a poll came out this week showing that four out of government is not listening to the people. four out of five people don't trust the government. we have seen our representatives go to washington and live happily ever after and ignore the will of the people. that has to stop. that is one of the reasons we are seeing this reawakening in indiana. it is because people are realizing their voices in the past have not been heard. it is one of the reasons i am running to be your u.s. senator. i am going to washington to represent you and listen to you. >> d.c. morrison -- daniel coats.

>> thank you for hosting this event. we do take a solemn oath. one of us will take that oath to uphold the conversation -- uphold the constitution. you have to listen to what they have to say. had this president done that he would not have advanced is spending agenda on the american people. i also believe it is important for a representative to state to the people he represents -- to state their basic convictions. sometimes the popular mood moves populist -- say they want to legalize drugs. if it goes against your convictions you have to say this is not what i believe. they have the opportunity to vote you out of office, but it is important to let people know your fundamental convictions. >> joan could not join us

tonight, so she recorded her question for the candidates. >> i am from indianapolis. i would like to know what do you propose to do about the lack of bipartisanship in washington? >> as we rotate the order, we began with richard behney. >> great question. it depends on what you talk about bipartisanship. right now there is this idea of compromise being good for we are as a people. i will not compromise when it comes to our constitutional principles and values of life and liberty. i will have no problem extending a hand across the aisle when we are discussing what kind of paint color we want to have, or maybe what's jets we want to

purchase, but when it comes to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness, i will not compromise. >> i believe the people of indiana and the u.s. will be sending a message to washington in november, and that will be heard loud and clear on both sides. this is likely there will be a new majority in washington very similar to what happened after the 1994 elections. the members of congress will get to work doing the people's business. there will be that mandate to work together in order to bring the federal government back to within its constitutional constraints, balance the budget. it is the result of the people doing their job to maintain their own liberty that will be practiced in november that we

will see an outpouring of bipartisanship in washington on capitol hill. >> thank you for the question. i'm sorry you could not join us. nine number one responsibility is to represent you -- my number one responsibility. even if i have to be partisan, if i am doing the work you want me to do it then i am willing to go it alone. one of the things i have noticed in washington is there seems to be a double standard. it appears we want republicans to be bipartisan but there is not this move for democrats. i don't think that is fair. my responsibility is to represent you. if i can do that in a bipartisan manner, i am happy to. we have to do what ever it takes to put people back to work. i will do everything i can to do

so in a bipartisan manner. >> daniel coats. >> currently in washington there are two different views of america. the view represented here this evening by people speaking to you is a different view than what is coming out of the white house. that makes bipartisanship very difficult. two parties looking down opposite path. the issues our country faces are issues we have to rally around. we have to support them on the basis of conservative principles because they have worked. what we are doing to our economy with this administration is leaving as down a disastrous road. to solve that problem we need support from the other side. people have to support that. they should come our way on that. the threats from abroad. we need bipartisanship in

dealing with people who want to kill us. that is something we have to reach above ideology and support each other in protecting america. and when i've traveled the state as i've traveled the state over 25,000 miles talking with hoosiers and listening to them and hearing what they believe what i'm finding is there's a common thread through us as hoosiers we believe in the constitution we believe in freedom, we believe in god, we believe in our families, we believe in our communities and we believe that hoosiers are the answer to our problems, not always the government and that's the problem right now in washington, d.c we have politicians who are trying to cram legislation down our throats and taking over major portions of our economy, for example, the healthcare legislation that just passed i believe if they would listen to hoosiers and realize the effects that they have by taking over more and more of our freedom that people are going to react very strongly in this next election i think bipartisanship is

important on those issues that we agree upon, but some there are going to be issues that we just have to agree to disagree >> thank you matthew daily yea's a lawyer and lives in fishers, indiana matthew, what is your question for our candidates? >> thank you, sir my question is: if you were to be elected to the senate what would be the topic and purpose of the first bill you >> what would be the topic and purpose of the first built you would address -- dziewit draft to make law law? >> we will begin with john hostettler. >> legislation would have to deal with the deficit. it is the single most important issue facing our country. the expansion of the government evidenced by a takeover of the health-care system by the federal government, an incremental step is such that it is important members of congress

focus on this issue of the deficit. legislation i would introduce would deal with a plan to bring the budget into balance as soon as possible. that would require a discussion of many issues across the board. that is legislation i would be introducing early on in my tenure. >> thank you for your question. on december 31, 2010 the bush tax cuts will expire. the next day every taxpayer will get the largest tax hike in the history of our nation. we cannot afford to allow this to happen, especially in a time when our economy is struggling. we have 10% unemployment in indiana. we need to generate jobs without an artificial stimulus bill. the first legislation would be

to make those tax cuts permanent. it will inspire confidence that we are serious about rejuvenating our economy and it will get as that on the road to recovery. >> the same reason that the state of india struggles with the bouncing of the budget the u.s. congress needs to struggle to balance the federal budget. until we have a balanced budget amendment that forces members of congress to control spending, to stop government from exceeding its constitutional bounds, we will not have fiscal responsibility. we have run up debt that is unconscionable. we are digging a hole that our children may not be able to dig out of. you send money to washington and it will be spent. we have to have an imposition of those under oath supporting the constitution disallowed from spending money and not bringing

our fiscal situation into balance. people are depending on that. we are losing credibility around the world because we cannot stay up with it. >> time served. >> thank you for the question, as a small-business owner that is one thing i bring to the table. i have never voted for an unbalanced budget. we need to control washington the same way. there should never be a budget that is unbalanced. we would have to raise taxes and put our children at risk, whether through deficit spending -- it is important for us to ask our government to do the same thing so many families still, to have a balanced budget. it is a very appropriate thing with the trillions of dollars of

debt one of my opponents voted for a debt ceiling increase. we cannot continue to borrow and spend. we need to stop the in balanced budgets congress continues to pass. >> that is just the point, our government is creating too much legislation. i am asking hoosiers to repeal a lot of this legislation that the government is shoving down our throats. this health care legislation must be repealed. it has changed the dynamic of who we are. we are no longer a free people. i will work to repeal this legislation, for is an economy- killer. it is a killer of our liberties. >> our next question is from a

student's point of view. he is from indianapolis. >> my question, do you think taxes are a viable way of getting out of debt? do you think a limited federal government can exist in this day and age? >> thank you for the question. i have a lot of friends on the campus of iu. we must lower taxes in our nation in order to rejuvenate our economy. president reagan approved if you allow the american people to keep more of their money they know how to rejuvenate this economy. yes, you can do both. we can lower taxes and live within our means. that will force us to make difficult choices. we have to acknowledge that the spending binge we have seen did not happen overnight. republicans were elected in 1994 with a mandate to straighten

government. it only took them 12 years to lose their way. we have to rebuild trust with what we do in washington. >> daniel coats. >> you hit on a very important point. raising taxes as soon as government needs more money. right now our government is soaking up some much through taxes and sell much incentive is lost in providing support for small business and providing relief forç homeowners that our economy is stagnant. government is bloated and doing beyond what is required to do. is spending money as if there is no tomorrow. that is destroying our economy and putting us into a difficult situation. lowering taxes -- john f. kennedy lower taxes and it stimulated the economy. what is the role of government

and how will we stop this ever expanding government? this health care plan will add hundreds of thousands of people to the government rolls. stimulus has added government workers. we have to stop the expansion of government. >> i think our government can exist and we could not do better. we in indiana have done the same thing. in 2005 we had a $1 billion deficit. we have eliminated debt without raising taxes. if you keep taxes low you broaden opportunities for people and reduce the cost of business to government. you are not paying as much to the government and can put that money in your own pocket. you have so many more opportunities. it is vital with the massive amount of debt we have that we reduce spending and keep taxes lower. i believe that is what will get our economy moving.

i come from northeast india out with high unemployment rates. -- northeast indiana. we need sound policies like energy policies that will get our economy moving again rather than more government. money to buy additional equipment or employ new employees so certainly we must make the bush tax cuts permanent this year but more than that, we must simply stop the spending we have a $3.9 trillion budget that is one-third out of balance one-third out of balance that's $1.3 trillion out of budget we simply cannot continue in that manner we must stop the spending and we must cut our budgets and make the bush tax cuts permanent and that will go a along way to help small businessmen like myself >> moderator: mr. hostettler? >> ronald reagan often said

>> it is not that the government tax is too little bit is that it spends too much. i have consistently voted to cut taxes across the board in order to allow people to keep more of their money and recognized that they invest much more wisely than bureaucrats. they have created the jobs as a result of the spending. might impose to bring the budget into balance -- it is that the government spends too much. it spent trillions of dollars at this point. the question is not can limited government be a possible -- it will take place if we do not take steps now to limit government deliberately -- it will be limited as a result of

an economic disaster that we must work to avert. >> you are listening to the indiana debate commission's debate of the five candidates for the republican nomination. our next question comes from barbara. she recorded her question with the help of our friends from lakeshore public tv. >> would you support legislation about the treaty president obama signed with the head of russia earlier this month for a reduction in nuclear arms by both sides and with verification? >> this is another one minute answer. daniel coats, you can answer this first. >> i will not support that until i find out the details. we have seen treaties proposed that once you get into the details you find out information

that does not justify the decision. i have to be frank with you. i think the foreign policy of this president is someone who has not had experience -- he has gone around the world apologizing to our enemies and not representing us in a way we need to be represented. we saw the positive results that resulted from that. this deserves great scrutiny. while it is desirable to reduce nuclear weapons, i don't want to see the u.s. give that up given the policies of this particular president? >> i would not support this agreement. it is crucial for us not only to

secure america, but also protect our men and women who serve in the military. one of the responsibilities is the federal government -- is national defense. we need to make sure we as americans that we are fulfilling that responsibility and making sure our nation is secure. we are the first to help those countries in need after a natural disaster. it is important for us to maintain our freedom through that strength we had in our military. the president continues to weaken ourselves militarily, those countries wanting to do damage and hurt our freedoms will see that as a sign of weakness. weakness. it is i believe that our president has

sent a porn message to those who want to do america harm. there is an iranian leader that's done on are still too busy who stood up on our soil -- there is an iranian leader that stood on our soil and said that they would get rid of israel and america. we want to send a clear-cut message that, yet they build it, we will come. >> i would not support this treaty because i think the president has gotten his priorities backwards. before you move to disarm, limit the capability of striking back, we must first fully develop a layered national defense shield. . policy of the united states government to develop a layered national missile defense shield that would be able to defense us from not only long-range attacks

from, say, russia but also short and medium-range attacks so that we could preserve the security of our -- of our -- our nation and all its territories we must do that before we seek to disarm, because without that defense, without that capability, disarming would be -- would not be in the national interests of our country and would make us more susceptible to danger >> moderator: don bates >> barbara, thank you so much for the question i have to tell you there are for the question i have to tell you there are many times when i >> thank you for the question. there are many times when i feel like i am living through jimmy carter park two. one of my greatest disappointments with president obama is his foreign policy. he has insulted our friends and apologize for our greatness to our enemies. i would not support this treaty.

i was disappointed he pulled back from the czech republic and poland with the missile defense we promised them. i believe we are sending the wrong message. instead of a message for leadership we are sending a message of appeasement. >> our next question is from stephen per ervin. what is your question for our candidates? >> where do you stand on any future semi-automatic weapons ban? >> let's start with marlin stutzman. >> i believe it is the people's liberties teeth. it is the second amendment for a good reason. i would not support any additional restrictions on

assault weapons. i don't believe in it is necessary. we need to protect those rights. back in the 99 because there were votes to ban assault weapons. we have to be vigilant in how the government and fringes on our second amendment rights. we value those freedoms we have that are guaranteed by the second amendment. this election is very important. the nra is making a clear statement how they will endorse the upcoming primary. it is important to stand strong on the second amendment issues and would not support additional appeals. >> i believe the founders were very clear with the second amendment. they were not talking about deer hunting, they were talking about protecting one's self and one's

republic. i believe any attempt to take away the second amendment rights in any way is not appropriate to who we are as a people. it gives teeth to the amendments and has kept us a prosperous people. i will work hard to protect our second amendment rights. >> i oppose any new restrictions on firearms ownership. in 1995 i cast a vote to repeal the clinton gun ban put in place prior. i also opposed national gun registration and have worked to make sure paperwork collected is destroyed within the time requirements of the federal law with regard to reciprocity, i sponsored -- legislation to

allow those individuals with -- to conceal and carry with other states. i think the second amendment is very clear and we should not infringe on the right to keep and bear arms. >> banking for the question. i will not support legislation that hinders our right to bear arms. the second amendment goes to the heart of one of our liberties, the right for us to protect ourselves. you will notice among most democrats there is a difference of opinion when it comes to the second amendment. it seems like they are always coming up with legislation that will hinder our right to bear arms. there have been a few well- meaning republicans who have joined him. i will not support any legislation that will hinder

your ability to bear arms. >> i would not support legislation of any of the three questions asked. the second amendment guarantees people the right to protect their home and their family. it gives the right to collectors to maintain weapons and keep weapons. that is a right guaranteed by the constitution. it is a right that ought to stay where it is. >> what would you like to ask the republic candidates -/ç askd the republican candidates? >> how would you cut spending and attempt to balance the budget? >> i will start with richard behney. >> being 80 party guy, i would like to rip everything out. our economy is very sick.

to do such a thing would throw our economy into -- nothing would be left off the table. i would take a businessman's approach and look at our budget and our expenses and look to make cuts across the board. we must make the cuts and must look at it as a people. these are entitlement programs. what are you willing to give up? that is a question each of us must answer for ourselves. we must start making cuts. our nation is depending on it. >> it is an excellent question. it will take a layered approach. this year one-third of the senate will be reelected, so we will have numbers which we will have to work with in order to make the change in philosophy

and the way of doing things. the first thing we must do is we must not allow for any new spending. when i was in congress for 12 years under democrat and republican presidents congress was lobbying for new spending. i opposed that. ultimately, we must look across the board at reducing spending in all areas. my only exception would be international defense given that the constitution requires the government have the defense of our country. every other program would have to be on the table. >> thank-you for the question. this is one of the waste republicans lost the trust of the american people. it is one of the reasons we lost in 2006 and the lost to a

democrat for the first time since 1964. we must acknowledge even republicans lost their way. i have been very specific about where we start. i am not a politician and i have çanswered these specifically. i am asking senators to take a 5% pay cut. i told you americans do not trust government. if we said weç have cut our pay 5% it will go along with. after the supreme court takes down the health care bill we must reform of medicare and medicaid. we must reform social security for those my age and younger. we need to understand social security must look differently. >> thank you , i will try to give three or four quick points. now new programs, even if it is

a popular program. we cannot afford it. government has way too much. we need to get government back to its original purposes. there are a lot of things governments can pass on to the states. there are things that can be done outside the government because they do not trust the rest of us. line item veto, offered that when i was in the senate. -- i authored that when i was in the senate. congress will spend anything they are given. leslie on defense, i am for a strong national defense, but to say we will not take a penny out of -- there are items that have to come out that were built in the cold war. >> thank-you for the question.

as a small-business owner i have dealt with budgets needed to be cut. we have done that under the state level. we have been able to balance our budgets and cut spending. there are three things we can start on. i believe we should eliminate ear marks. there is no need for earmarks' to be spent when we are facing trillions of dollars worth of debt. with our children having to pay for frivolous spending going on in the government. we need to look at every department head and they need to deal with their specific department as a business owner. how can i cutbacks we cut almost 20% across the board. we can also look at the department of education which is a huge spender of those dollars. it is better suited for our states. rather than the federal

government trying to find more ways of spending dollars. karen k. leonard is a retired teacher from indianapolis karen, welcome, glad to have you kind of step up to the mike so these distinguished gentlemen can hear you what is your question tonight? >> my question is by what parameters would you determine whether to support a nominee for federal office? for example, an appointee like a supreme court justice? >> moderator: we begin this time with john hostettler >> thank you, karen that's a very important question in that there must be a philosophy of government that underlies >> there must be a philosophy of government that underlies all of these decisions. the senate has given the power to advise and consent. that idea of consent is important in that we should not look at every appointee who goes

before the senate as someone who has a past because they had been chosen. of would ask diligently of this nominee is their political philosophy and how they would apply the constitution. i would not take part in a compromise that would suggest that future nominations would be based on some nebulous agreement. its is as a result of diligence we must make sure every nominee will do that which they are asked to do under the constitution. >> thank you for the question. i am not here to talk about the past, i am here to talk about the future. i am concerned about what the supreme court will look like by the end of president obama's first term. i will weigh every nominee

carefully, but i am probably buys from the get go because i know the philosophy of this president. i know how he is trying to shape the supreme court. therefore i am concerned. i will look at the records and whether they have been legislated from the bench in a way that proves to be a liberal activist. i am very concerned that these nominees and i am concerned about the future of the supreme court. >> the justices of the supreme court are there to defend the court are there to defend the constitution, not to rewrite it. that is not clear constitutional prerogative. i was fortunate enough to be asked by president bush about

damage alito. it three hard months of a lot of work. he is faithful to the constitution for what it says but it is faithful to the rule of the balaw. together with justice roberts we had two models. there is strict constructionists. cracks thank you -- >> thank you. the judicial branch as a third branch of government. of the that the judges as umpires to abide and keep the rules of the game. and not be legislating new rules. it is important that the judges

understand that. the and not to be changing the law but interpreting it. tand that. they are not to be changing the law, they are to be interpreting it. i would agree in the 1990 possible and senator coats voted for justice ginsberg, that that is not good for the process. confirmation hearings are there for a reason. it is more important that we've that each one of those nominations for how they viewed the constitution and what role they play in interpreting the law. i would support making sure we applied strict constructionists. >> i had an american by s. -- i have an american bias. i believe our constitution protects life through its

inception, disability, age, all the way until our father in heaven calls us home. i will not vote to confirm any justice to the supreme court who will not publicly announced they understand our constitution protects life and they are pro life. >> i'm sure you will agree there are questions from hoosiers that demonstrates hoosiers can come up with great questions. they came through our indian that the debate commission website. larry is from marion. here is his question. what are your proposed plans on the north american free trade agreement and other trade agreements that allow companies to move out of the country and still get tax benefits? >> thank you for the question. >> i'm sorry, it one minute answer. >> thank you for that question.

it has come up on the campaign trail quite a bit. i have heard people say we need to abolish nafta. i'm sure there is validity to that point, but it you were to abolish nafta i can promise you prices will triple in america. that is that the action we want to take to rejuvenate our economy. what can we do to preserve jobs in the u.s. and in indiana? i believe you do it through tax cuts. we are losing jobs to mexico. we have the second highest corporate tax rate in the world. why don't we incentivize businesses to grow in our great state? let's not penalize them for sending jobs elsewhere. >> i agree with that. while trade agreements must be fair and must scrutinize them carefully, it is important as a

nation that the u.s. be able to export to other countries. in the and that derives a great number of jobs from the export of goods. we have to be careful not to cut off our nose to spite our face. we need to provide the basis for jobs to be preserved in america. the incentives through lower regulations -- this administration is imposing taxes on small business, in opposing that on indiana is costing us all lot of money -- imposing that on indiana is costing us. >> benjamin franklin said no country was ever destroyed from free trade. what we have done with nafta has been one part -- it has been

good but we are hurting american jobs through higher taxes. we have the second highest corporate income tax. when that money is not going to the government, it is going back to standing and a comic -- expanding an economy. we need to lower taxes and have less regulation, because we are creating an unlevel playing field for companies in america. if we are going to tighten them down when we have free trade, as john's will start going elsewhere because it is easier to do business elsewhere. it is important for our economy to put people back to work that we understand this business principles that made our country. >> this is just the perfect example if we get the federal government out of our business

we can get things done. i've created hundreds of jobs in indiana and hired hundreds of employees. we have the best work force in the world. if we can't allow this work force to do the job we can allow companies to figure out how to get the job done, we can get it done. we must get the government out of our business. i will go to d.c. to do just that, to get the federal government off our backs. >> the north american free trade agreement was not a free trade agreement. it would have been easy to say no tariffs shall be imposed on american goods going into the other countries of north america and no tariffs will be experienced by this exporting to america. it had to create an uneven playing field, otherwise the american economy would have

overwhelmed the zero economies of mexico and canada. -- would have overwhelmed the economy'ies of mexico and canad. we must have agreements that recognized u.s. interests of workers come first. we should not get away the farm quite literally in these agreements whenever the agreements must devalue the ability for the u.s. to compete. >> gentleman, we are at the final question. it is not like final jeopardy, but our question comes from someone fromçó moticello. i will read her question as she wrote it. you will have 90 seconds to respond. that will also include any closing comments to the people

of indiana you might wish to make. what makes you exceptional from the other four candidates that you should turn our vote? we have gone through the full cycle nearly twice, so we will begin with daniel coats. >> i think what differentiates me from my colleagues is not so much the position on domestic issues, but the foreign policy experience i have enjoyed as a long-term member of the armed services committee and also serving overseas representing our country. i have had to deal with national security issues on a day-by-day basis during a time of war. meeting with heads of government, working with our heads of government trying to fashion policies and being very engaged in all of that. let me just say this, the most

important words of the constitution are, we the people. i think washington interpreted as me the president and we the liberals. at a time when they ought to be focused on getting our economy back on track they are pushing through a massive new spending programs that are running as deeply into debt. hoosier's know who i am. i had served them. i am a ronald reagan conservative. i am for less spending. i am for a limited government. faith, freedom and family have been my guiding lights. those lights are burning brighter than ever. we need to be a nation who has a model of not we trust in government, but under guide this government can go forward. -- but under god this government can go forward.

>> thank you for your question. i respect each one of these gentlemen and have enjoyed the campaign trail, but it is important for us to look at where we are as a nation to realize the attack on our freedoms and realize what country will we hand off to our children? as a small-business owner, my wife and i were married in 2000. in 2001 our son was born in august. we were down in florida the day we were attacked on 9/11. that they changed my life in realizing my son had his whole life in front of him. i believe we needed to get involved at that time. we stood together as americans. i believe we are a citizenry that is frustrated with our government because it continues to infringe on our freedoms. our constitution is clear on what the government is structured to do.

it is important for us to protect that freedom for our families and our future, to have a senator that will be responsive and will listen. i have had the opportunity to see how federal government affects our state. that is one thing that separates me from my colleagues, i understand the long arm of the government and how it affects our freedoms. i would ask for your vote and go to my web site. >> thank you. >> i appreciate your question. this has been an amazing year for me having brought the tea party movement and to be standing with these four other fine gentleman, but i feel like i had been standing with four gentlemen who are applying for a government job. we have three who have been there and done that and one who has done little, but all four

still had a goal long to get along attitude. -- a go along to get along attitude. it is time to send someone other than a politician. it is time to send someone who will say -- who will stand up and changed the game in d.c. we have an important decision to make on may 4. will we continue with politics as usual, or will we ride ourselves back to the government of the people and by the people and for the people and insert we the people back into our government? stand with we the people on may 4 and vote for richard behney. if you stood at 80 party, i ask for your vote. -- if you stood at a tea party.

thank you for being here. >> thank you for the question. why should you vote for me? when i ran for congress for the first time in 1994 iran to restore trust in government, so i put down on paper my stances on important issues. i was told by people who had done that before who had been in public office that you cannot do that. at some time in the future you may have to cast a vote that deviates from these things you put down. i wanted to restore trust in government. i wanted people to know i was going to do what i told them i was going to do. if i was asked to raise taxes when i had pledged that i wouldn't, -- when i was asked to compromise on the right to life by folks in my party or an

outside my party who said they would let this vote passed, i would not do that. i am hearing all over that what measures are longing for is a voice not only for the conservative values -- what hoosiers are longing for -- a voice that will be consistent in washington, that i will do what i said i will do. if we don't have that trust then >> thank you a very much. >> thank you for the question. three of my colleagues have worked hard to earn the support of washington. . i believe it to be whose years of across this great state. i believe i have the greatest grasp of the fiscal disaster

that is facing our nation and tally have to fix it if our nation will be preserved. we are in a time of crisis. we stand at a crossroards. if you'll elect me on may 4, i promise to lead the charge to reagan's shining city on a hill. we finished the race . we can to them free . i hope you will vote for me on may 4. god bless the united states of america. >> thank you for a spirited discussion. i know our viewers enjoyed it. thank you to all of you for watching and listening to our u.s. senate debate posed by the

end in a debate commission. i think the candidates and the staff. the indiana debate commission. our thanks to the staffs. a special thanks to the voters to ask the questions. speaking of voters, primary day is tuesday, may 4. [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2010] cable satellite corp. 2010] >> sunday the second of three

british debates operative they were all competing to be the next prime minister predicted that is that 9:00 p.m. eastern here on c-span. really today, arizona governor signed an immigration law that would require police to determine if people are in the country illegally if there is reasonable suspicion president obama singled out the measure as misguided. now the president's remarks for active-duty service members. this is about 20 minutes.

>> please welcome first-class sgt. oh say can you see, by the dawn's early light what so proudly we held reedy we hailed at the twilight's last gleaming. whose broad stripes and bright stars through the perilous fight or their ramparts we

watched were so gallantly streaming and the rockets' red glare, and the bombs bursting in air gave proved to then i-flag was still there. please, be seated.

it is now my distinct honor to present 24 members of the united states armed forces from 16 countries throughout the world who have applied for the united states sentences. all of these have been found to be qualified to become united states citizens please, stand and remain standing. brazil, china, colombia. england. ethiopia. diana 80 jamaica kenya. mexico new guinea.

at this time, please look them jin in appalling tunnel. show at men and -- janet napaolitona. >> good morning. please, remain standing candidates, please raise your right hand. i hereby declare the oath that i absolutely and entirely renounce allegiance and fidelity to any foreign prince stayed or sovereignty of whom were which i hair 24 have been a

subject. but i will support and defend the constitution and laws of the night it states of america against all enemies foreign and domestic. that i will bear true faith and allegiance to the same that i will bear arms on half of the united states . when required by law that i will perform, that service in the armed forces of the united states when required by law that i will perform work of national importance under civilian

direction when required by law. it did take this obligation freely without any mental reservations or purpose of evasion so help me god congratulations. please, be seated one of the great privilege of being a secretary of homeland security is a banishing the oath of allegiance to new citizens. this is all the more so when they are members of our armed forces like the candidates here this morning it takes a very

special individual to serve and defend a nation that is not yet fully your own. that is what each of you are doing. that is testimony to a strong patriotism and nation thinks you for your service. we owe the freedoms we all enjoy, the sacrifices of men and women like you. since september 11, 2001, the united states services and has naturalized over 58,000 of our armed forces. bringing immigration services to our groups wherever they serve. since last year, but offered non-citizens and listees the opportunity to naturalize immediately upon completion of basic training so they can graduate as american citizens. supporting this work is a cadre of officers who work directly with the military and their

families many are veterans themselves they are aware of the circumstances the multiple deployments. i am proud to say that we are now working closely with the department of defense on our training initiatives we will continue to do everything in our power to expedite the process for those who are already giving so much to our country and the off you my congratulations on your achievements today. we are all proud to call you fellow citizens. now it is my distinct honor and privilege to introduce to you the president of the united states. esther president. -- mr. president. [applause]

>> good morning, everybody. thank you, secretary napolitano, for being here to administer the oath --for making it official. thank you, also, for leading our efforts to achieve comprehensive immigration reform so that america keeps faith with our heritage as both a nation of immigrants and a nation of laws. to director mayorkas and all the dedicated folks at . citizenship and immigration services, thank you for your help to these men and women, and so many of our troops, to realize their dreams of citizenship. we are joined by congresswoman susan davis, deputy secretary of defense bill lynn and the vice chairman of the joint chiefs of staff, general jim "hoss" cartwright. most of all, to america's newest citizens -- it is a great honor to serve as your commander-in-

chief, and it is my greatest pleasure to be among the first to greet you as a "fellow american." to you and your families, welcome to the white house. today is your day -- a celebration of 24 inspiring men and women and the remarkable journeys that have brought you together on this beautiful spring morning to our nation's capitol. the paths that led you here began in more than a dozen countries, from peru to poland, from kenya to the philippines. some of you came to america as children, holding tight to your parents' hands as you arrived in a new world. some of you came as adults, leaving everything you knew behind in pursuit of a new life. and while your stories are your own, today we celebrate the common spirit that lives within each of you -- a spirit that has renewed and strengthened america for more than two centuries. we celebrate the love of family -- your moms and dads who were willing to say good-bye to their own families, their own

countries, so they could have an opportunity to give you the opportunity you never had. like generations of immigrants before them, they worked hard. they scrimped and they saved. they deferred their own dreams so that you could realize yours. so today is a tribute to their sacrifices as well. and i would ask that you join me in honoring your moms and dads and the families that helped bring you to this day. we celebrate the spirit of possibility -- an ethic that says if you're willing to put your shoulder to the wheel and apply your god-given talents, if you believe in yourself and you play by the rules, then there is a place for you in the united states of america -- no matter where you come from and no matter what you look like. it's the spirit that brought a

young woman from the people's republic of china and inspired her to enlist in the united states air force, where she excels as a material management specialist. so today we congratulate our fellow citizen, yu yuan. it's the spirit that brought a refugee from ethiopia and led him to enlist in the . army because, he said, he wanted to give back to the country that "has given me the opportunity to be all that i can be." and today we congratulate berhan teferi. we celebrate the true meaning of patriotism -- the love of a country that's so strong that these men and women were willing to risk their lives to defend our country even before they could call it their own. it's a patriotism of a daughter of mexico, who came to america in those first terrible days after 9/11, joined the . navy and says, "i take pride in our flag and the history that forged this great nation and the history we write day by day."

so today we congratulate perla ramos. and it's the patriotism of a young man from papua new guinea, who joined the united states marine corps and deployed to iraq -- not once, not twice, but three times. asked why he would choose to become an american citizen, he said simply, "i might as well. i love this country already." and so we congratulate granger michael. the four of you can sit down. you represent not only the branch of the armed services that you are a part of, but also the other members who are your fellow citizens here today, and we thank you very much. we're grateful to you. in short, today we celebrate the very essence of the country that we all love -- an america where

so many of our forbearers came from someplace else, a society that's been enriched by traditions and cultures from every corner of the world, a dynamic economy that's constantly renewed by the talents and energies of each new citizen, and a people who understand that citizenship is not just a collection of rights, but it's also a set of responsibilities. like so many others, these men and women met their responsibilities. they played by the rules. they have earned their citizenship. and so on a day like this, we are also reminded of how we must remain both a nation of immigrants and a nation of laws. this includes fixing america's broken immigration system. over the years, many have attempted to confront this challenge, but passions are great and disagreements run deep. yet surely we can all agree that when 11 million people in our country are living here illegally, outside the system, that's unacceptable.

the american people demand and deserve a solution. and they deserve common-sense, comprehensive immigration reform grounded in the principles of responsibility and accountability. government has a responsibility to enforce the law and secure our borders and set clear rules and priorities for future immigration. and under secretary napolitano's leadership at the department of homeland security, that's exactly what we're doing. we've strengthened security at our borders, ports and airports and we will continue to do so, because america's borders must be secure. that's part of what these young people here today stand for. businesses have a responsibility to obey the law and not undermine american workers, especially when so many americans are out of work. many businesses work to comply with the law every day. but for those that don't -- those that ignore the law and

exploit and abuse vulnerable workers and try to gain an unfair advantage over all the businesses that do follow the law -- we will hold them accountable. and people who are in america illegally have a responsibility -- to pay their back taxes and admit responsibility for breaking the law, pay a penalty, learn english, pass criminal background checks, and get right with the law -- or face removal -- before they can get in line and eventually earn their citizenship. so responsibility. accountability. common-sense, comprehensive immigration reform. i thank secretary napolitano for helping to lead our efforts, both on and off capitol hill. and i thank senators schumer and graham for working with us to forge a bipartisan consensus on a framework for moving forward, and i welcome the commitment of house and senate democratic leaders to take action. i'll continue to consult with democrats and republicans in congress, and i would note that 11 current republican senators voted to pass immigration reform four years ago. i'm hopeful that they will join with democrats in doing so again

so we can make the progress the american people deserve. indeed, our failure to act responsibly at the federal level will only open the door to irresponsibility by others. and that includes, for example, the recent efforts in arizona, which threatened to undermine basic notions of fairness that we cherish as americans, as well as the trust between police and their communities that is so crucial to keeping us safe. in fact, i've instructed members of my administration to closely monitor the situation and examine the civil rights and other implications of this legislation. but if we continue to fail to act at a federal level, we will continue to see misguided efforts opening up around the country. as a nation, as a people, we can choose a different future --

a future that keeps faith with our history, with our heritage, and with the hope that america has always inspired in the hearts of people all over the world. for just as each of these 24 new citizens once cast their eyes upon our country from afar, so too, somewhere in the world today is a young boy or a young girl wondering if they, too, might someday share in america's promise. in the example of these new citizens, and in the actions we take as a nation, let us offer our answer, with confidence and optimism. yes, there is a place called america that still welcomes those "yearning to breathe free." a country where if you work hard and meet your responsibilities, you can pursue your dreams. a society where out of many, we are one -- "one nation under god, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all." that's the promise of america. that is the spirit that all of you are renewing here today. we are incredibly proud of you, god bless you, and may god bless the united states of america. now, we have one other piece of business. would sergeant ledum ndaanee please come forward.

there he is. how are you, sir? >> hello, sir. >> growing up in nigeria, ledum probably never imagined he'd be standing on this stage today. >> that's right, sir. >> neither did i. but thanks to the generosity of churches in virginia, he and his parents found a home in the united states. and ledum, who says "i always wanted to be in the military," found his calling in the united states marine corps. he deployed to iraq, and was serving his second tour when his unit was struck by an improvised

explosive device. in the weeks and months that followed, he battled to recover from traumatic brain injury. at a va medical center, with his parents at his side, he was presented a purple heart. and a few moments later, he was sworn in as an american citizen. this marine was not only determined to recover, he was determined to help others. he has been a leader and mentor to his fellow wounded warriors. in fact, i hear he's quite an athlete -- >> yes, sir. >> -- he agrees. he will compete next month in the first warrior games at the . olympic training center in colorado. so for his distinguished service to country, and for inspiring us all with his example of what citizenship truly means, i am proud to join the . citizenship and immigration services in presenting this recognition -- the "outstanding american by choice" award -- to sergeant ledum ndaanee. do we have the award? [applause]

with that, i ask him to conclude their ceremony but the thing that's all in the pledge -- by beating us all in the plight of allegiance. >> i pledge allegiance to the flag of the united states of america into the republic for which it stands, one nation under god, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. >> thank you. >> thank you.

♪

>> meet the top three prize winners. it is the ninth 15 eastern. what all of the winning videos at studentcam.org. >> tomorrow, a discussion on the role of the media and national security issues. the university of texas law school is the host of this event. it starts a 7:00 a.m. eastern. the second of three british

election debate with prime minister and labour party leader quarter brown, compressor did this liberal david cameron. they are competing to be the next prime minister. that is at 9:00 p.m. eastern. >> we really have to get this right. if we do not, we could stifle innovation. we could stifle the free market. we could stifle our economy. because -- we could cause more harm than good. >> see the process unfolds with other experts. certification it. what it. clip it. share it. >> timothy geithner met with counterparts around the world. there were talks and the global economy and on the world bank coming up this weekend.

>> how're you? nice to see you. ... make the opening remarks -- i will just make a few opening remarks. they did a nice job of demonstrating the promise that the g 20 holds for cooperation on the global stage. i'm making is largely about growth and financial reform. the world economy is coming back stronger and more quickly than many people expected.

you heard today and tonight from countries around the world. they are signs of building momentum. we have a law of work to do to reinforce the recovery. we want to make sure that as we are working to reinforce the recovery, that we lay conditions for a more balanced global pattern. that'll require a substantial set of reforms. on the grease, i have a number of conversations with my colleagues from europe and the imf. i spoke to the greek finance minister this morning. i welcome the greater sense of urgency we are seeing. i want to encourage the greek authorities to move quickly and put in place the strong economic

reforms. on financial reforms, it captures the decisive moments both in the united states for the senate will be next week. . . of reform. the u.s. is moving to address key vulnerabilities that helped contribute to this crisis. the rest of the world should see that we are not going to be a source of instability in the future. of the u.s. can be a source of strength, a source of growth and a source of stability. it is very important to us, as we move in the united states, we move in the united states, that we improve ncy in the financial sector and that we are doing so across the major

financial centers across the major economies. i believe that we have a very broad consensus on the core elements, but as you know, the key test will be when we transfer that into a new global agreement on capital standards. that is the most task -- the most important task ahead of us. we have to get down to the tougher judgments. i want to make it clear that we will incest on fighting there -- we will insist on fighting very hard for a very strong set of more conservative constraints on leveraging. that is the most important thing that we can do. again, i think that we have very broad support on the basic elements of reform.

this will bring derivative markets out of the dark. it will develop better mechanisms for putting financial problems to rest. with that, and with statements that i made in my original statement, i will be happy to answer your questions. >> your career and counterpart said there was a central discussion on currency. was that true and was a disappointing for you if it was true? >> we discussed, as we always do, the broad policies that are important to have a more balanced pattern of growth. what that means to us is that in the united states, it is

important that we are taking steps to make sure that we are strengthening private investment and that we are putting in place a more financial -- a better financial system to rid we are borrowing much less from the rest of the world. as the recovery strengthens, we will move quickly to bring this down to a more sustainable vision. if you look beyond the u.s., countries around the world are recognizing that they do not want to rely on the u.s. consumer to provide a source of growth. in the major surplus countries that are lagging the global recovery, we would like to see more policy reforms.

that will be very important to us. in the emerging markets, you are seeing a substantial shift. we want to see that accompanied by a shift where it is obviously important to move to more market oriented exchanges. this has brought a consensus -- this meeting, like all our meetings, as those dimensions and you can see some encouraging signs of shift, but we have a lot more to do. >>yes? >> mr. secretary, the canadians seem to believe momentum is swinging their way. >> all things are swinging canada's way.

they won the medal in olympics and that is a good sign for canada. >> are you going to accept a fee as well? >> what me tell you what we're trying to do. we are trying to establish the basic principle pta. we propose a fee on risk. it would cover the cost of our emergency financial rescue. that is a simple, basic impaired. there is significant support among other countries. the imf gave us a very thoughtful paper that achieves

that directed. that was helpful. we will move in the united states because we think that is what we need to do. when countries see what we do, they will wait to see how we do it in the united states. i think that you will find other countries moving to adopt similar measures. i cannot tell how far it will go. obviously, as you have seen from canada and other countries, they have a lack of enthusiasm for that idea. if you look at how canada faired in this crisis, they came out relatively well. it is no surprise to me that you saw a diversity of views on this. we are going to do what is necessary within our interests. i think that the world will want to watch what we do and i

suspect it will provide a basis for other actions across the other major economies. i think that will be good. the basic imperative should be that we are designing incentives for future risk-taking. we established the proposition by our actions that we should not have the taxpayers bear the burden of solving meese -- solving the financial crises. >> i just wonder what you got from the premier when he visited beijing? >> what common sense? in thcommon sense in terms of agreement? >> ok, what was the mutual understanding?

when did you expect that china would move? but i want to be careful how i say this. i'm going to repeat what i have said before. at nothing new or different -- nothing new or different this is china's choice. -- nothing new or different. this is china's choice. i believe that they will decide it is in their best interest. this was a very important shift. i think that they will do it because it is in their interest. that remains my view. >> >> i am from argentina. [unintelligible]

argentina does not have an agreement and they do not have a consultation process. i was wondering if we would hope to have one and to comply with this? >> that is an excellent question, but i want to leave it to the managing director of the imf to respond. >>yes? >> on the subject of derivatives, of was wondering if you could directly address senator lincoln's use? >> there was a very strong set of reforms that came out committee on thursday. we are now working with both committees to work out technical

issues involved in this very complicated set of reforms. my judgment is that we will have a very strong package of reforms for the derivatives markets. the basic framework is to move the standard as part of derivative markets on to clearing houses and onto exchanges to bring transparency to these markets. we will make sure the major markets are subject to oversight. that basic set of reforms is very important to us. i think it is important to all the major economies. i think we have a very good chance of getting strong support in the senate for those reforms. >> [unintelligible] >> it was said that some countries might be moving too fast on the financials.

what i read that. i thought, "really?" we are not moving with excessive haste. again, i spent a lot of time with people in the world that are involved in similar efforts. i think that they would like to see the u.s. move. i think that -- i will say it this way. we will move and i am quite confident that you will see the world move with us to replicate or to put in place a similar set of broad reforms to bring transparency. >> [unintelligible] >> no, but we talk all the time.

the imf is very supportive, as they should be. >> [inaudible] >> that is an excellent question. i would answer it this way. out of a basic sense of fairness, we are going to make sure that we cover the cost of this crisis in the united states in the form of a well designed feed on banks so that banks pay in proportion to the risk that they take. the basic principle is that the government is exposed to a risk of loss, we would recoup that loss in the form of a similar fee imposed on banks.

that is the basic premise. we think that that makes sense. i think there is a very strong fiscal policy case for that. it is out of fairness that we would adopt that. >> i am with aero china. how would you address this fiscal deficit problem? it is proposed that by 2011, developed countries should start to do it. i wonder if you have a timeline? >> it is going to depend on whether -- on where the recovery is. in the united states, we will start to bring down our deficit quite substantially over time.

that will be the time that she moved. we would get them much closer to the point where we are living within our means. of course, congress would have to reenact those proposals. by letting the action expire, that would be the policy measure in our fiscal deficit over time. our recovery will be weaker as we take steps to take action around the world. we will have the ability to bring our fiscal ability to

turn. >> i have a question on the greek situation. was it any agreement on greece beyond just showing concern? >> i want to leave it to my colleagues in the imf to give you any more detail on the plans ahead. i see -- and you couldn't read this elsewhere, based on what i heard, they will move more quickly to put in place the very important thing which is the strong package of reforms. i think i need to leave you.

one more question? >> could you elaborate more on how the treasury apartment will move on the r and d issue? >> no, again, this is china's choice. i will leave it there. thank you all. tomorrow, on washington journal, just in hyde on the $4.7 million of the 6.7 billion owed to the u.s. treasury. also, a look at changes in parliamentary procedures with charles stevenson. after that, anya kamenetz her latest book.

washington"journal," live at 7:00 a.m. eastern here on c- span. >> sunday, the second of three british alexi and debates. it will include gordon brown, david cameron and nick like. they are all competing to become the next prime minister. >> but tv is live this weekend from the l.a. times festival of books with tammy bruce. these are just some of the featured authors taking your calls, females and tweets. follow the authors and panel discussions live all weekend from c-span2. it the whole schedule from booktv.org. >> the senate sought to

regulate. the bill is expected to be merged with a larger financial overhaul measure proposed by finance committee chairman christopher dodd before coming to the senate floor. this is just over two hours. the senate committee on agriculture, nutrition and forestry will now come to order. thank you senator chambliss and all the members of the committee for being here today. thank you to our special witnesses and to the public at large who understand how important the issue of financial reform is to our country. i also want to thank the staff at the commodity futures trading commission, the banking committee, our house counterparts and the

administration for all of their input and hard work on this bill and the broader reform package that our bill is about to join. i cannot overstate the significance of what we are about to do here today. as i've said before, financial market oversight reform is the single most important factor in our long-term economic recovery; it will be the foundation for our nation's financial future. we must reaffirm the integrity and soundness of our financial system. this stability is the only thing that will maintain our nation's preeminence as a global leader in worldwide financial markets.

reform will also give comfort to consumers and businesses so they can trust our markets to determine fair prices and manage risk. every member here at the table recognizes the importance of the task at hand. in 2008, our nation's economy was on the brink of collapse. the greed and excess on wall street spiraled out of control and families and small businesses were left to pay the price. america was held captive by a financial system that was so interconnected, so large and so

irresponsible that its failure almost destroyed our economy and our way of life. i recently had the honor and solemn responsibility of taking over the gavel of a committee tasked with putting an end to the reckless behavior that got us into this mess. i intend to use that gavel to change the way our financial system does business. at the heart of financial regulatory reform is reforming the over-the-counter derivatives market. within a decade, this market exploded to $600 trillion dollars in notional value. we must bring transparency and accountability to these markets. this is not a partisan issue. i believe every republican and democrat in this body is committed to doing what is right to put our economy back on track. all of us are committed to creating jobs, to protecting america's preeminence as the center of the global financial world, and to restoring a free market system that does not rely on the backstop of the u.s. treasury. my good friend senator chambliss and i and our staffs worked tirelessly for months to solve these problems - in good faith and good company, and came so close in the end. he will recognize the lion's share of what we have here and i want to thank him and his staff personally for making this a better product.

whatever happens today, senator chambliss, i want everyone to know how deeply committed you are to reform and doing what is right. you are a good friend and, though we may have had our differences, you have contributed very positively to this product. despite our differences, we must move forward. we senators have a solemn obligation to protect our nation. this is no time for small fixes or tweaking around the edges. this is the time for bold change and big decisions about the future of our country and the global financial system. we all sit here today knowing what went wrong and to contemplate inaction is unacceptable. this reform is historic. this bill will bring 100% transparency to a currently

unregulated, dark market. it will lower systemic risk through clearing and exchange trading and real-time price transparency. it will close loopholes and make sure that regulators forever have the authority to go after those entities that would evade the law. it protects jobs on main street by encouraging hedging and risk management by commercial end users. it protects municipalities and pensions and any governmental agency from gross profiteering. it will give greater enforcement authority to regulators to crack down on fraud and abuse. this is real reform. this is strong reform. but it is important to point out this is not regulation for regulation's sake. this bill is surgical in its approach. we have an important but narrow end user exemption, appropriate restraints on the regulator where necessary, and provisions that recognize we are competing

in a global financial world. this is a robust package that balances the needs of strong, meaningful reform and recognizes the importance of these markets. americans are demanding transparency and accountability from their government and from their financial system. we are here on their behalf and i take that responsibility seriously. we are not here to make easy choices. we are here to take on tough problems. america's consumers and businesses deserve strong derivatives reform that will ensure that the u.s. financial oversight system promotes and fosters the most honest, open and reliable financial markets in the world. i look forward to working with my colleagues here today to reach this goal.

chairman lincoln, thank you for holding this markup today. this is yet another example of your dedication to carrying out

your responsibilities as chairman of this committee. since you became chairman -- just over six months ago -- we have held hearings on many topics and this will be your second markup in less than a month. people sometimes forget that this committee deals with much more than just mainstream agricultural issues. this committee is responsible for oversight of the commodity futures trading commission, derivatives regulation is an area that we constantly monitor. as the senate continues to work on financial regulation reform, we all know that appropriate regulation of derivatives, and specifically the swaps market, is a critical component of such legislation. i have always enjoyed serving on the agriculture committee because of our long tradition of working across party lines to advance bipartisan bills that can be defended on the floor of the senate from both sides of the aisle. our committee has historically had a high success rate of seeing our bills enacted into law while other committees report many bills only to watch them fall apart or stall for months on the floor of the senate due to partisan politics. this committee has historically not fallen subject to partisan influence. the most recent example is the 2008 farm bill -- we reported a bill and we moved it through

the senate despite a veto threat from the white house, and a republican president i might add. we then conferenced the bill without any support from the white house and overrode their veto, not once, but twice. again, i point out that very few other committees are able to do this. why? because members of this committee check their partisan politics at the door in an effort to reach consensus so that both republicans and democrats can support the bill on the floor. less than two weeks ago we had worked out a good bipartisan product. i wish that the other members of the committee, both republicans and democrats, would have had the opportunity to help further refine that agreement. it required clearing of swaps by those entities contributing to systemic risk -- a substantial change from current law; provided the securities exchange commission and the commodities futures trading commission with the authority to establish capital and margin requirements -- an authority

they currently do not have; allowed the cftc to impose aggregate position limits -- another new authority; and provided the much needed transparency that has been absent from the swaps market. this represents a 180-degree shift from current law. just as important as the new regulation included in the compromise, was the recognition that we needed to preserve the ability of businesses to legitimately hedge risk without additional costs, and it did this for all businesses, whether they are manufacturers, processors, or even financial in nature. when i say businesses that are financial in nature, i am not referring to large dealers like bank of america, goldman sachs or jp morgan -- they would not get an exemption from clearing. i am talking about entities like those in each of our states that actually use derivatives to hedge their interest rate risk. for instance, farm credit system institutions -- despite attempts to ensure that they are not subjected to all of these new mandates, i understand that

the chairman's mark may have in fact not exempted them. this is exactly what i fear -- unintended consequences resulting from applying complicated regulations too broadly. if we subject these financial institutions to the increased costs of clearing their interest rate swaps, they will likely be forced to raise interest rates they offer to their customers -- our constituents and farmers -- is that really the objective we are trying to achieve? our bipartisan draft also sought to send a message to the cftc that entities like koch industries who are hedging their risk and also engaged in developing products for their customers should not inadvertently be captured in a new regulatory category designed to apply to big financial dealers: koch

industries and goldman sachs should not be regulated in the same way. treating these entities like dealers may force them to stop offering these products to their customers in which case their customers will have no other options but to seek such products from the large dealers, like goldman sachs. this essentially drives all of the business to those that are most systemically risky. these are just two of the many unintended consequences that results from overreaching regulations on the businesses and financial entities that had nothing to do with the meltdown of our financial system. as i said earlier, the elements of the agreement that my staff had reached with chairman lincoln's staff represented a 180--degree shift for swaps regulation -- going from essentially unregulated to completely regulated. the handful of remaining issues, that now stand between us and a bipartisan bill, do not constitute some stark choice between democrats supporting regulation while republicans do not; we probably

generally agree on 90 percent of the specifics. however, the remaining 10 percent of the issues involved here -- namely the extent of the end--user exemption; and whether there is a mandatory trading requirement on exchange for swaps instead of the more functional price reporting -- are very important because they involve real costs for businesses, and real implications for properly functioning derivatives markets. i will be offering a substitute amendment that, not surprisingly, consists of the language associated with our bipartisan discussion draft agreement that chairman lincoln's and my staffs had worked out over the course of the last five months. i had hoped that we would be working to perfect it today. i remain hopeful that as this process moves forward there will be opportunities for us to once again seek solutions that we can all support. madam chairman, i would say,

after looking at your final mark this morning, you have made some significant changes from the original proposal that you made. i think that those changes are positive. i think that it moves us much more close together on the fundamental issues. i know that we may have some amendments other than ours, i don't know what our members are quick to do, but i am very hopeful and optimistic that as we move forward following today, the respective of the outcome that takes place within this meeting, that we will be able to get together on the key remaining items that still separate us. your cooperation, is your attitude, and your spirit have just been extremely positive and that is probably why we are such good friends. i think you for that and i look forward to the marked up today. >> i appreciate you and the

spirit in which you have engaged in these discussions. you have done a great job and i am very grateful for your friendship. i want to say to the cabinet members that i do apologize. i know that you got the language last night. we worked tirelessly with the council and overworked them a little bit to get that to you. we did want to make sure that you have the opportunity to mark up to them so that we can go to the floor and we do not know how that will proceed. we wanted to make sure that we would get to that today. i would like to touch on the changes at that we presented to you. we will have a brief discussion for counsel and then we can go to your discussion. i briefly wanted to describe those changes that are represented in this mark.

the basic structure remains the same from the draft that you all have. the mark will lower systemic risk by requiring this. they will be required to clear this through the clearing house. these transactions must be traded on a regulated exchange which will provide further price transparency. my mark continues to prevent future bank bailouts by eliminating the too big to fail issue. the federal reserve and the fdic should not and will not provide assistance to firms that deal in those risky derivatives. just like investment advisors -- investment advisors, after

consultation with my colleagues, i now includes some changes that are mostly technical in nature from the discussion draft that we released last week. to quickly high live, this would be regulated like all other swaps. this market has been modified from the discussion draft and now contains an opt out provision. if the secretary determines that the a swap should not be regulated, he must write a written finding. it remains the same unless the treasury beans that that is inappropriate. we would expect those written findings. this would include the inclusion of pensions to commercial end- users. the new law is clarified and i

think that the new mark clarify is this. the definition of a swap execution facility are also further refined. it establishes a permanent energy advisory committee. finally, my mark calls for the sec to make progress on portfolio marketing issues and establishes a process between the two agencies for dissolving risk -- of disputes over transactions. those in the minor changes that we made in the mark. that is the mark that you received last night. i would like to turned to the committee's chief counsel for regulatory reform to describe those details. >> good morning.

since we are all working on less sleep than we normally have, i will try to provide some highlights. we are happy to go through each and every one of the 43 amendments and changes that we made. in fact, we have provided a list of amendments from the discussion draft and have explanations of the materials in your folders so that you can refer to them. i thought that the best approach would be to provide highlights of the major changes that were made between the discussion draft and the chairman's mark. i would be happy to go through each and every one of these, but that may not be the best use of your time. if you would like to pull out a particular amendment that we meet and discuss it, i would be happy to do that. i believe these are the top five

or six changes that people should be looking at. i think that should accelerate the process. i would like to focus first on the definition issue. it is what we first arrived at in the document. i would like to stay consistent with our reporting and transparency efforts, so we provided all members with a draft that was marked to show changes. we have a red line in your materials and that makes it significantly easier to figure out what changes were made as opposed to clean text. if one would like to look at this with me, i would direct you to page 14 of the red line so that you might see the changes that were made.

the definition included entities which, after speaking with staff, we thought it was appropriate to provide some clarification that they were not covered. you'll notice on page 14 that employee benefit plans had been clarified as not being included. pardon me, i am operating off of the draft that i had from last night. i am being assisted by my good friend. lines 24 to 28. in addition, we also make a clarification regarding captive finance arms for manufacturers.

you'll find that on page 14, lines 13 through 34. those were the subject of several amendments that we had and i am not going to be able to cross reference them right now, but i believe that a couple of senators were among several senators that will oppose those. you will find that in the amendments in your materials. the second area that i would like to point to would be page 19. that is the forex provision that the chairman referred to. it is not a very long section. it is only one page. it provides that foreign exchange swaps would be considered to be swaps and

subject to regulation unless the secretary of the treasury makes a written determination that they should not be covered. >> if i might ask, -- don >> pardon me? the change in the discussion draft had no kick out provision. it was actually afford exchange swap included in the definition of swap and would be regulated like any others what. we made the change to permit the secretary of the treasury to determine whether to kick those out from being regulated as swaps by the cftc. >> this change is similar to the

concept of how the house passed their bill. the cftc could make the determination that either foreign exchange swaps or forwards could be regulated. the secretary can determine whether foreign exchange swaps are subject to regulation. >> we had discussions with members of the committee as well as members of the administration did -- immigration. the next part but i would direct people's attention to is found on page 20 and that is the definition of swap dealer.

we have made certain changes to that. it would be lyons -- lines 3 and 4. my glasses are not working very well. we added a fourth -- this could be over broad in catching individuals

you could either be all buying or all selling on swaps. those entities would continue to be picked up in a major swap participant. this is more of a clarity. if the second provision makes a clarification, and that is technical assistance to make sure that technical entities have a very limited activity and are treated in a more refined way. that is the activities provision that you find on seven and eight. i would like to push on to the exemption that is on page 27 and 28.

from the top of page, the clarifications are -- no financial entity will be permitted to be considered a commercial in the user and they will not be able to use the clearing exemption. the second item that we hit, here, for clarification and, ist we try to make it very clear that the definition of who is a commercial end user is not

restrictive. we try to say that it is an example of the types of commodities that a particular commercial end user may be involved in. there is a concern that our definition did not cover the manufacture of goods, nor did it cover all commodities. the list that we have a bear, we added some language to make sure that this is merely to explain that there are a lot of commodities that people use and that it is acceptable for commercial entities to be engaging in all commodities. on page 28, this provision has been clarified with the assistance of the cftc to be sure that it is very clear that a commercial entity could be assisting the parent of another affiliate that is a commercial

entity in terms of hedging. an affiliate can actually do the commercial hedging for the parent. that is permissible. it is appropriate it is, in fact, very common in large holding companies. affiliate's me do that without being considered is what dealer. >> i believe that pat hit most of the highlights on all of the -- as you can tell, he is prepared to answer questions that balks may have -- that people may have. these are the changes that have been made. >> madam chairman, i just want to say that after reviewing and having a chance for our staff to visit with your staff, we appreciate the effort that has

been extended here. i think that these are significant improvements. in looking at currency markets, i think that it is very wise -- i do not think that any of us can be certain that we would not have unintended consequences if the foreign currency markets were included. i think that this gives us a chance to have some additional time to get a review by treasury. they came in with the cftc. we had kind of a counterpoint are arranged by you, madam chairman. i think that was very constructive. this was about the differences. how do we make certain that this is being done in a way that will

not have unintended consequences with respect to financing the united states and will not have adverse consequences with respect to the value of the dollar and liquidity issues. i think that was a positive change. i appreciate the extraordinary effort you and your staff have gone to to include the rest of us in these changes. i want to thank you for that. >> well, thank you senator conrad. you are exactly by that it gives us the opportunity to ensure that there are none of those unintended consequences. i feel good that as we deal with the second largest swap market of over 56 trillion dollars, that we take the necessary steps that need to be taken, but give ourselves the opportunity to ensure that there are not any unintended consequences.

>> if i may also add, i appreciate the ranking member. we have an unusual situation here. regarding how productive the relationship is on both sides of this committee. senator chambliss, the ranking member, has been very constructive in the proposals that he has put forward. the good thing about this place is that we have a chance to have a debate and then we vote. we should remember that this is the first step and then we go to the floor and we go to conference committee. on something of this importance and its complexity, we need to value every step of the way what is being done and what are the implications? i think that we will have further opportunities to address some of these issues, but i think that you up and tune --

that you have done a superb job. >> i appreciate all the hard work of everybody coming to the table to talk about these issues i meant to mention senator leahy had to leave for a meeting, but i wanted to think and for allowing us in one of the bankruptcy provisions, working with him and his jurisdiction, we were able to add that. i want to ask unanimous consent that his comments be included in the record. i will certainly look to other members to speak and then we will go to senator chambliss'. >> i want to thank you for your hard work. we all know that there are those

that use our financial system and millions of people have been hurt. businesses have been hurt. i just came from a meeting of businesses that say the same thing ultimately, the loss 8 million jobs. we also know that derivatives -- they lost 8 million jobs. we also know that derivatives create instability around prices. you were able to address those that were hurt the first time because of what happened in terms of loss of credit. we do not want to get caught again. you worked with us to clarify those that are using derivatives for their own commercial risk to create stability.

it is also important that we recognize that this is a challenging bill that is complicated and it is important that we do it right. we all want to make sure that we do not throw the baby out with the bath water. this outrageous behavior has hurt americans. i want to commend you again, as well as chairman -- on the banking committee. i know that we will continue to work together to clarify and work together and get this right. i know that this is something that we all care very much about. in the end, is about real people and real jobs. i thank you for your efforts. >> thank you, senator. members did have concerns and we worked tirelessly with them to keep the core focus of our

legislation on what those markets are intended for. senator lugar? >> madam chairman, i am joined in thinking you for working together. likewise, this may short circuit the process and i do not mean to be abrupt, but i would just say that history marks that there is about 90% agreement in the amendment that you adopted today. these are larger ones that we have contemplated.

why can we not close that gap? it would conceivably be bipartisan and support of those areas the nature of this month of would be one that would need to discuss this. i will support this on the other hand, in the event that there is not that much of a gap, can you speak to that? how we bridge the gap for another 48 hours of haggling over this and that.

we could go forward with the same bill and it would be much more influential. >> i certainly appreciate your dedication to these issues. you have been very diligent about digging into the true issues that need to happen. this would be as careful as we could to not start that process. you do have to make a very in the weeds types of confirmation as far as to what fits the criteria. i would call on council if they would like to describe some of the differences or the reasons why those differences exist.

we would look to the administration to make comments about their concerns as well. >> at the beginning in the end of the day, the touchstone of this would be mentoring. i think that is the biggest issue that is there. there are a lot of other things that we could point to. if one wanted to point to one sound bite, that would be it. the difference between the two bills is that you have to have a mandatory trading. >> i would just reiterate the

central point. we want to bring derivatives trading in to minning full transparency to essentially clear derivatives as an essential aspect of the. we want to make sure that we have robust prudential supervision of the swap dealers and major swap participants in the marketplace without leaving room for significant players to escape that new provision. i want to make sure that commercial firms cannot escape from basic requirements. i think that the bill has moved significantly in that direction. >> i was just want to add strong

support for the product and the managers amendment. i think that senator lugar, you and i have worked together over these years. i think that one of the core issues that we are all grappling with is who is regulated? we make sure that we do not bring pension funds in tibet. secondly, which transactions come into this mandatory clearing and mandatory trading? that is what we have all been engaged in. my perspective is that we need to